Component Approval Workflow

Component approval workflows structure how component changes receive authorization to merge or deploy. These workflows define who must approve changes, what criteria apply, and how approvals are tracked. Well-designed approval workflows ensure appropriate oversight while enabling reasonable development velocity.

What Is a Component Approval Workflow

An approval workflow defines the sequence of authorizations required for component changes to progress. Workflows specify who can approve (roles or individuals), how many approvals are needed, what criteria approvers evaluate, and how approvals are recorded. Changes cannot proceed without required approvals.

Approval workflows provide governance without requiring centralized bottlenecks. By distributing approval authority to qualified individuals, workflows enable parallel approval while maintaining standards.

How Component Approval Workflows Work

Role definition specifies who can provide approvals. Roles might include design system team members, designated design reviewers, component owners, or qualified engineers. Clear role definitions ensure approvers have appropriate expertise.

Approval requirements define how many and what types of approvals are needed. Requirements might mandate one design approval and one engineering approval, or two approvals from qualified reviewers, or approval from the component owner for changes to specific components. Requirements should match change risk levels.

Approval criteria guide what approvers evaluate. Criteria might include design system compliance, code quality, accessibility, performance, and documentation. Shared criteria ensure consistent evaluation across approvers.

Workflow configuration implements requirements in development tools. GitHub CODEOWNERS files can require specific reviewer approval. Branch protection rules can mandate approval counts. Custom workflows can implement complex approval logic. Configuration enforces requirements automatically.

Approval tracking records who approved what and when. Audit trails show approval history. Dashboards display pending approvals. Metrics track approval velocity. Tracking enables accountability and process improvement.

Key Considerations

• Approval requirements should match change risk; minor changes need lighter approval
• Approver availability affects workflow velocity; bottlenecks cause delays
• Clear criteria help approvers evaluate efficiently
• Approval automation reduces manual tracking burden
• Escalation paths handle situations where required approvers are unavailable

Common Questions

How should approval requirements differ by change type?

Change-appropriate requirements balance oversight with efficiency. New component introductions typically need thorough review including design, engineering, and accessibility approval. Component modifications affecting public APIs need owner approval and design review. Internal implementation changes may need only standard code review. Documentation updates may need lighter approval. Bug fixes may have expedited paths for production issues. Categorizing changes and defining appropriate requirements for each prevents over-review of minor changes while ensuring significant changes receive appropriate scrutiny.

How should organizations handle approval delays?

Delays require both process and cultural solutions. Clear SLAs set expectations for approval turnaround. Notification systems alert approvers to pending reviews. Backup approver designation provides alternatives when primary approvers are unavailable. Escalation paths route stuck approvals to managers. Metrics visibility highlights chronic delays. Culture emphasis on review responsiveness establishes that review is important work. Auto-assignment based on availability distributes load among available approvers. Addressing delays maintains workflow velocity while preserving approval value.

Summary

Component approval workflows structure authorization through defined roles, requirements matching change risk, evaluation criteria, tool configuration, and approval tracking. Workflows enable distributed governance without centralized bottlenecks. Requirements should scale with change significance: thorough approval for new components and API changes, lighter approval for minor modifications. Delay mitigation requires SLAs, notifications, backup approvers, and escalation paths alongside cultural emphasis on review responsiveness.